Nikki Mitchell Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
463399632
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2015, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Nashville, TN, USA
Phone
9492783278
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$731,944
Expenses
$634,915
Assets
$1,013,749
Liabilities
$28,043

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Christa Bowles (Executive Dir.): $96,170 total reported compensation
  • Rhonda Miles (Chairman): $20,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide comfort and relief for those affected by pancreatic cancer, while raising awareness and supporting research that directly and indirectly affects pancreatic cancer patients.

What it reported doing in 2025

Part III- Bridge of Wingsprovides direct financial assistance to pancreatic cancer patients for essential needs such as groceries, transportation, insurance, car payments, and other household expenses. The program helps alleviate financial burdens so patients and families can focus on treatment and care. In 2025, Bridge of Wings assistedpatients with over $129,000. The $32,900 given in gas cards helped patients drive 101k miles to get to lifesaving treatments. Continued partnership with Dr. Andrew Page and Piedmont Healthcare in Atlanta to develop and facilitate the Nancy Lyle Ambassador Program, including training and supporting patient and caregiver ambassadors and facilitating all patient and caregiver sessions. Continued to offer our Thrive Together, twice-monthly virtual support program, connecting pancreatic cancer patients with one another and with resources to help navigate the challenges of living with the disease. Sessions provide a safe, supportive space to discuss topics including nutrition, mental health, symptom management, treatment challenges, and quality of life. The program helps patients feel connected, informed, and less alone throughout their cancer journey.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 49% for direct work, and 51% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 77
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.5%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 62.4%; rating input score 62
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.9 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13.3%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.6; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.3%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.4% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.8% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54.5% of revenue deployed · 62.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $396K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $96K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 5/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.